Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s reply filed 2/2/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 8-9 and 14-37 were canceled. Claims 45-46 were added. Claims 2, 4-7, 10-13 and 38-46 are pending and are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/15/25 was acknowledged. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Reply
Claim Objections
In light of applicant’s claim amendments, the prior claim objections are withdrawn.
Drawings
In light of applicant’s claim amendment, the prior drawing objections are withdrawn, and a new objection follows.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: see [0121] of Applicant’s PGPub., which cites reference numerals, reaction chamber 608, and fluid conduit 607; see [0169] of Applicant’s PG Pub., which cites reference numerals one or more top baffles 2804 and bottom baffles 2802. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference numeral 201 in fig. 2; reference numeral 501 in fig. 5A; reference numeral 601 in fig. 6A; reference numeral 701 in fig. 7A; reference numeral 801 in fig. 8; reference numeral 1001 in fig. 10A; reference numeral 1101 in fig. 11A; reference numerals 1200, 1201, 1202 in fig. 12A; reference numeral 13301 in fig. 13A; reference numeral 1401 in fig. 14A; reference numeral 1501 in fig. 15; reference numeral 1601 in fig. 16A; reference numeral 1700 in fig. 17A; reference numeral 1801 in fig. 18A; reference numeral 1901 in fig. 19A; reference numeral 2001 in fig. 20A; reference numeral 2201 in fig. 22A; reference numeral 2301 in fig. 23A; reference numeral 2501 in fig. 25A; reference numeral 2601 in fig. 26A; reference numeral 2801 in fig. 28; reference numeral 2901 in fig. 29A; and reference numeral 3001 in fig. 30A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “2401” has been used to designate both the embodiment of fig. 24 and primary fluidic conduit; reference character “2701” has been used to designate both the embodiment of fig. 27A and electromagnet EM1 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 4-7, 10-13, 41, 43 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The “circle arc segment” in claim 2 does not appear to be supported by the originally filed disclosure. Fig. 25A appears to show conduit segments in a circle arc segment form.
The term “sequentially” in claim 2 does not appear to be supported by the originally filed disclosure. While e.g., [0140] of applicant’s PG Pub. recites the term “sequentially,” the term uses the term “sequentially” to describe how one or more magnets may be arranged on the track to perform multiple sample processing steps either sequentially or in parallel. This appears to describe the performance of the magnets, and not the structural arrangement of the magnets.
In light of applicant’s claim amendments, the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn, and new rejections follow.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-7, 10-13, 38 and 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected because “at least a first permanent magnet and a second permanent magnet sequentially . . . arranged” is unclear in light of [0140] of applicant’s PG Pub.
Claims 42 and 44 are rejected because “first and second actuation element” should be amended to “first and second actuation elements”.
Claim 38 is rejected because the structural relationship between “providing a microfluidic device” and the first and second actuation elements” is unclear. In light of [0034] of applicant’s PG Pub., the microfluidic device and the actuation elements are structurally separate elements. The Office recommends amending the paragraph regarding “a first actuation element” on p. 4 of the claims to begin with e.g., “providing a first actuation element . . . ”, and particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter relating to the structural relationship between the microfluidic cartridge and the actuation elements.
Claim 38 is rejected because “or, alternatively” is unclear. The Office recommends deleting “alternatively”.
Claim 44 is rejected because “the at least one actuation element”; “a first actuation element”; and “a second actuation element” raise an antecedent basis issue. The Office recommends deleting the claim language “wherein the at least one actuation element . . . a second actuation element and”.
Claim 45 is rejected because “said at least a first permanent magnet” is unclear. The Office recommends amending to “said first permanent magnet”.
Claim 46 is rejected because “constrain the beads in a fixed position within the fluidic well and prevent the beads from moving further in the direction of said plurality of permanent magnets” raises antecedent basis issues. The Office recommends amending “within the fluidic well” to “within the at least one of the first, second, and third fluidic wells”. Also, the Office recommends amending “said plurality of permanent magnets” to “said first permanent magnet and said second permanent magnet”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8-15, filed 2/2/26, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-7, 10-13, 38, 41-46 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph; 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph; claim objections; and drawing objections set forth in this Office action.
Claims 39 and 40 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as for claims 2 and 38, the prior art of record (Ehben) fails to teach or fairly suggest the first permanent magnet is alternately offset from the second permanent magnet, and the first permanent magnet positionally corresponds to the first fluidic conduit segment for movement of said magnetic beads therethrough, and the second permanent magnet positionally corresponds to the second fluidic conduit segment for movement of said magnetic beads therethrough. As for claims 39 and 40, the prior art of record (Ehben) fails to teach or fairly suggest a carriage is slidably engaged to the track and to the sliding rail, and the carriage is configured to move in direction A along a sliding rail and in direction B as the carriage progresses along the track to ensure proper magnet positioning, wherein direction A is substantially vertical and direction B is substantially perpendicular to direction A, in combination with the remaining features and elements of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORE RAMILLANO JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lyle Alexander can be reached on 571-272-1254.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LORE R JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
3/5/26